Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Gorkon I'd like to renominate this article. It has not only been nominated once previously, but has now had two peer reviews (the latter of which was last commented upon 2 weeks ago), so I reckon that, by now, it should be up to scratch. I still personally believe the article is well written and thoroughly covers the topic of Gorkon. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to it. --Defiant 10:50, November 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Support', as I did before.--31dot 11:35, November 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Support', I did so before the "tinkering", only fair I do so after it;)--Sennim 12:27, November 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - 18:16, November 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Tom 21:17, November 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Support': Much better, though perhaps we could also include a quotes section? He did have some good lines in the movie. Regardless, my support stands. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:30, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :Comment: Why you didn't bring this idea of a quotes section up during the multiple peer reviews or the earlier FA nomination beats me. But that's okay (besides, maybe you just thought of it, or something). Aside from the point of wanting to avoid an issue of lack-of-stability, I personally find it hard to see what the quotes section would add that isn't already available in either the in-universe portion of this article, or in the "memorable quotes" part of the page about . Thanks for the votes already cast. If there's anyone else who would also like to contribute their say to this (even if it is an "oppose" vote), please feel free to go right ahead. :) --Defiant 00:19, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ::What's with the attitude? Could it be that I possibly haven't been on Memory Alpha for two or three weeks and thus didn't have a chance to comment in the peer review? I was just making a suggestion and you will notice that I still offered my supporting vote. Next time I won't bother. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:12, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :::Defiant, TF still supported it despite his suggestion; and even FAs can be improved after the fact. TF, the last nomination of this article was (in short) derailed by another user who was here intermittently without participating in peer reviews or other requests for comment so Defiant might be feeling a bit frustrated. In any event, further comment not related to this nomination should take place elsewhere.--31dot 01:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I'll admit that's the truth of the situation (though, in all honesty, I tried my utmost to not let that frustration seep into my reply, which was very hard). I did try to relate that I'm happy you made the suggestion, TF, and thanked everyone (including you) for having voted. I recognize that the suggestion has very little to do with the last FA nomination process, and I feel quite grateful for the idea having been submitted, as 31dot's right again – it can potentially help progress the article after-the-fact, which I was aware of at the time of writing the reply. All in all, no offense was meant, TF, and I did appreciate you contributing the suggestion. I'd suggest, though, that nitpicks and/or further ideas not be submitted here, unless to back-up an "oppose" vote. Any other suggestions can be posted on the talk page. --Defiant 01:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ::::Support. This is a well-rounded article and a worthy candidate for FA status. ::::But I also have a comment to make. This incredibly strict application of the stability rules over the last half year or so runs counter to MA practice in the past. In the past, articles have changed quite a bit during nomination processes, in response to user input. Nonetheless, those nominations succeeded where oppose votes were addressed. This was a good thing – the articles were improved through the process. ::::This recent strict interpretation of stability is having the perverse effect of making people reluctant to comment on how articles can be improved further, for fearing the nomination may be lost due to the almighty stability criterion. I oppose any interpretation of policy that discourages the improvement of articles. ::::What does this have to do with this discussion? Well, if we took a more common sense approach to the FA criteria, TrekFan is able to support and say in effect "as a bonus, why not have some quotes". We can then have a discussion about whether quotes should be added without worrying about derailing the nomination. Everyone gets their input, and the article is improved as a result.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:58, November 17, 2011 (UTC) Nominations with objections